SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Bakerloo Line - Reviving rumours of the southern extension

251K views 843 replies 119 participants last post by  DanLondon 
#1 ·
Have recently heard rumours that TfL and the PFI companies are looking again into the southern extension of the bakerloo line to Camberwell. does anyone know anything further??? Planned timeframe??

I also know that once the TfL has acquired the North London Line Franchise (the new London Overground) that it will also be re-extended to Watford
 
#213 ·
Agree with Sesquip, althiough fewer central London tube stations would probably have two entrances, at opposite end of platforms, like Crossrail.

Central London obviously benefits from the high-density of stations, given what tube lines we've got, because they are usually within walking distance.


I think that when the Victoria Line was designed, the idea was not to have many stations, not because of cost (no doubt a factor), but because of journey time.

Warren Street, and Highbury & Islington were late additions (Pimlico another, I expect).

(In those days, the North London Line was about to be ripped up for "Ringway One", a motorway between an extended M1 and an extended M11.)

OK, its off the thread.
 
#215 ·
As I understand it: If CR2 gets built at mainline gauge, then the tunnels would be too big to thread between the existing tube lines at Piccadilly. Tube gauge tunnels (like JL extension ones; still larger than historic tunnels, but smaller than those for CR1 or HS1) would just about fit.
 
#225 ·
It missed Lewisham though, which I think it should hit - and the tunnels go halfway down Walworth Road, so it wouldn't make sense not to extend at least down to Camberwell before heading out whichever route they choose.

I've always thought - E&C - Camberwell - Peckham (Rye or Library) - New Cross (E-W in between the two stations, link them via Bakerloo platform and have two exits) - St Johns (optional but be good to close mainline station) - Lewisham then split branches for Hayes via Ladywell and Bromley North via Grove Park - both 12tph minimum and any extra frequency terminating elswhere, maybe a depot aorund Hither Green so there or Lewisham...done!
 
#226 ·
It missed Lewisham though, which I think it should hit - and the tunnels go halfway down Walworth Road, so it wouldn't make sense not to extend at least down to Camberwell before heading out whichever route they choose.
I don't think that TFL want the Bakerloo line to go to Camberwell. The new London Transport strategy from the Mayor has 3 options for a Bakerloo southern extension. 2 heading to Hayes (one via Lewisham, one via Peckham/Nunhead I think). The third option is for Camberwell heading towards Herne Hill if I remember correctly. It seems like this was tacked on as an extra option just to stop people in Camberwell who've been campaigning worrying or complaining.

It's only my opinion but I'm sure that if the Bakerloo extension does get the go ahead, it will be to Hayes, taking over the NR route from Catford onwards. Its the perfect route terminating where it does and would create some space at London Bridge. I think its just a case of whether it goes via Lewisham or stays further west.
 
#227 ·
I have to agree with the creator of the map below - Camberwell would be much better served by a Northern extension of the Charing X branch from Kennington.

Technically, would it be a headache and a backwards step to split the line into two new directions?

So Battersea Power Station gets its small spur westwards, but the main, longer extension is to Camberwell and further into SE London.

 
#234 ·
Technically, would it be a headache and a backwards step to split the line into two new directions?

So Battersea Power Station gets its small spur westwards, but the main, longer extension is to Camberwell and further into SE London.
It would be a fairly pointless spur that would just remove capacity from the longer route.

IMHO, it would be far better served by extending the W&C south - a realignment at Waterloo to permit the extension, running south to Lambeth Palace so (which, along with a Bakerloo extension with a new, larger depot leading to the closure of London Road) Lambeth North can close (it's stupidly close to Waterloo anyway), then on to Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea, then Clapham Junction. As it stands, the alignment is very poorly served by rail given the number of lines running through it!
 
#229 ·
The reason I sent the Northern to Camberwell instead of the Bakerloo is clear to see when you look at a map. In order for the Bakerloo to serve Walworth, Camberwell and Peckham Rye, it has to go well out of it's way to do so, whilst sending the Northern south from Kennington naturally leads to Camberwell. There's a large unserved area between Walworth and Peckham Rye though, so I added a station where I could find a major enough road to serve it. Fairly arbitrary, and I'm open to better suggestions that don't lead it too far out of the way.
 
#230 ·
There's a large unserved area between Walworth and Peckham Rye though, so I added a station where I could find a major enough road to serve it. Fairly arbitrary, and I'm open to better suggestions that don't lead it too far out of the way.
You could replace Southampton Way with two stations, at Burgess Park and Camberwell Church Street (eastern end) - that way you get Camberwell on to the tube map, if only by default. :lol:
 
#237 ·
You have to be self-motivated! You could start a blog on the subject, with maps and arguments, and get linked from all known residents associations, councillors' blogs, and so on.

Then get councillors to write to their local papers, and put copies of their letters on your blog.

Tell us all when you've done that!
 
#260 ·
A few years in the 2004 mayoral elections the Green party candidate promised that if he were elected as mayor then the Waterloo and City line would be top priority for an extension

He envisaged the extension from Bank then taking over the
Great Northern & City suburban line as far as Alexandra Palace
And then south from Waterloo to Chessington, Twickenham and Kingston
Replacing SWT suburban lines to those destinations, with a station built at Blackfriars

But it was dropped which I'm suprised by because if the line had been extended then it would remove any need for both the Northern line extension
And the Chelney line branch to Clapham Junction
 
#253 ·
Really? Capacity issues?

Who in their right mind would get off a mainline train at Clapham Junction to travel on a slow tube train to Waterloo, where their train was probably headed anyway? I suspect that the only people using this extension will be users for Battersea.
 
#254 ·
Becuase most people going to Waterloo (and Victoria don't forget) then get off their train and try to pile onto the tube network. This leads to problems such as Victoria underground station closing due to overcrowding most mornings or the absurd queues for a bus outside Waterloo station. Most people who come into Waterloo and Victoria don't work there and need to make an additional journey, this would give them an alternative option. Don't forget the sheer volume of commuters who pass through CJ every morning as well.
 
#257 ·
I think the idea is to eventually have both the DLR via Charing Cross (or Crossrail 2 or its tube equivalent via Victoria) and Northern via Battersea to Clapham Junction. This would mean 2 metro services at Clapham Junction heading for the West End/City and supposedly less overloading than if all those changing at CJ took just one metro service into the centre.
 
#258 ·
I think the East London line extension was a huge waste there shoudve been an extension
From New Cross to Thamesmead via the North Kent line, therefore reducing the need to extend the Jubilee line to Woolwich, Thamesmead & Bexley which was to be phase 3 of the JLE after the Stratford extension, but it looks like they'll keep the Jubilee line as a single line, meanwhile I'd extend the Bakerloo into two main branches plus a branch to Bromley North the main branches which would join at Beckenham Junction

Branch one: from Elephant to Camberwell then Peckham, New Cross, Lewisham then
Take over the Hayes line to Beckenham then on to Bromley, Orpington and even Sevenoaks with another branch continuing to Elmers End and Hayes

Branch two: from Peckham to the East Dulwich line to Crystal Palace then rejoining at Beckenham to Sevenoaks

The Victoria line could be extended to Croydon on one branch and Penge East via the Herne Hill line
 
#259 ·
I think the East London line extension was a huge waste there shoudve been an extension
From New Cross to Thamesmead via the North Kent line, therefore reducing the need to extend the Jubilee line to Woolwich, Thamesmead & Bexley which was to be phase 3 of the JLE after the Stratford extension, but it looks like they'll keep the Jubilee line as a single line, meanwhile I'd extend the Bakerloo into two main branches plus a branch to Bromley North the main branches which would join at Beckenham Junction
Thamesmead and its neighbours desperately need an outer orbital route. However, this may be better provided by a spur off the proposed Dagenham DLR branch. This spur would dive under the Thames and run south through Thamesmead, interchanging with all three of the Dartford lines along the way (including Abbey Wood to provide a link with Crossrail).

The spur would be far enough out that few passengers would see it as a serious option for commuting into the City or Docklands via the Dagenham route. They'd be more likely to change at Abbey Wood onto Crossrail.

Branch one: from Elephant to Camberwell then Peckham, New Cross, Lewisham then
Take over the Hayes line to Beckenham then on to Bromley, Orpington and even Sevenoaks...
There are only two tracks between Beckenham Junction and Shortlands. At Shortlands Junction, a grade-separated link brings in the two-track Catford Loop line and both continue to Bromley South on a four-track formation.

The Bakerloo line's core section is electrified using the fourth-rail system and has its own signalling systems. If ATO is also fitted, this means trains won't be compatible with the third-rail network you wish to run it on, so new, fully segregated, tracks would be required from Beckenham Junction onwards, meaning six tracks from Shortlands!

There simply isn't the capacity to run Tube-level frequencies along the Beckenham-Orpington / Sevenoaks routes and retain capacity for the fast services approaching London from Tonbridge, Chatham and beyond. Not to mention the stopping services running from Orpington to Victoria via Penge.

Branch two: from Peckham to the East Dulwich line to Crystal Palace then rejoining at Beckenham to Sevenoaks
The same problem applies to this suggestion: there isn't any capacity.

The Victoria line could be extended to Croydon on one branch and Penge East via the Herne Hill line
Again: How do the long-distance services get into London if you've installed fourth-rail electrification, ATO and Tube-grade signalling along their primary route into Victoria?

Your suggestions are all very laudable, but they utterly miss the fact that south London's rail network already does double duty as both urban metro and long-distance main line.

Personally, I'd build new express mainline tunnels to remove the non-stop services from the existing network, then modify the classic lines—along with some major surgery to Waterloo, Charing Cross and Victoria—to provide Tube-level frequencies and some additional Thameslink-style cross-London routes.

Tunnels are much cheaper to build when you don't have to worry about including a station every kilometre or so. So the result would be an inversion of the existing Tube network south of the Thames, where the stopping services would run above ground and the long-distance trains run in tunnels.
 
#263 · (Edited)
Extensions, or new builds?

^^

Further to the above, there's another major problem with the repeated calls for extending existing lines: metro lines have an upper limit on how many passengers they can carry per hour. Making them longer does nothing to increase that capacity, but merely increases their catchment area and the number of passengers boarding the trains.

We've seen what happens when you take extensions too far with the recent DLR extension to Woolwich. Passengers boarding at City Airport, who were used to seeing near-empty trains waiting for them, are now fighting their way onto trains jammed with passengers from just across the river. There are only so many trains the DLR's signalling system can pump down the tracks every hour. (This extension has also highlighted just how much pent-up demand there is on the southern side of the Thames. Mark my words: the Crossrail trains from Abbey Wood will be very popular too.)

There are, therefore, two equally important questions to answer before proposing an extension to an existing piece of infrastructure:

1. Engineering: Can it be built? And, if so, how?

2. Capacity: Should it be build, given the capacity constraints of the existing line?

For the Bakerloo, the answers to both questions are: "Yes, but..."

The various official proposals suggest taking over the Lewisham-Hayes branch, with a spur to Beckenham Junction also possible, as the necessary formation is still there. (The Bakerloo station at Lewisham will need to be underground due to the geography of the site and the layout of the existing stations.)

Current practice is for metro lines to have as few branches as possible, to ensure consistent service. Coupled with the difficulty of reaching the Bromley North branch from Lewisham, it's unlikely that a separate branch to this terminus could be justified. However, the Bromley North branch could be served by a future (albeit mostly tunnelled) extension from Hayes, via Bromley South station, then up the hill under the shopping centre to the Bromley North branch where it would then run to a terminus at Grove Park. This would provide some useful orbital journey opportunities. (The station buildings at Bromley North could be retained, although the new platforms would likely still be below ground at this point.)

Question 2 is the reason for picking the Bakerloo for this extension over the other lines: the present route is currently imbalanced, with far more passengers traveling on the line from the north than from the south. A southern extension would improve this and avoid carting air about on the return trips. Furthermore, the Hayes branch itself runs through some medium-density suburbs, rather than loads and loads of high-density housing, which also reduces the possibility of trains being jammed before they get anywhere near Lewisham and Peckham, let alone the central core of the line.

The Northern Line could stand to be split into two southern branches, but the Battersea branch project effectively rules out a third branch to another destination: there just wouldn't be the capacity through the core sections. Service pollution affecting both branches would also be an issue. Better for this line to be focused on fixing Surrey's problems rather than those of Kent by extending from Battersea at some future date.

The Victoria Line appears, at first glance, to be a candidate for further extension, but it has major capacity issues already. Throwing even more passengers at it is only going to make this worse; the capacity issues need to be resolved first.


None of the other existing tube lines lend themselves to further extensions south of the river, so any new urban metro infrastructure will require entirely new lines. (Hence my "express tunnel" suggestions on this thread and elsewhere.)
 
#275 ·
The Victoria Line appears, at first glance, to be a candidate for further extension, but it has major capacity issues already. Throwing even more passengers at it is only going to make this worse; the capacity issues need to be resolved first.

None of the other existing tube lines lend themselves to further extensions south of the river, so any new urban metro infrastructure will require entirely new lines. (Hence my "express tunnel" suggestions on this thread and elsewhere.)
As mentioned in another thread:

Well don't forget the plan to offload the southern orbital to Victoria to the ELL.
Surely nothing is going to happen much at Victoria until (if I've read this right):

The EEL phase 2 has been in operation for five years (ie around 2017, when the franchise is up for renewal?) so TFL don't have to pay compensation to the TOC for lost revenue.

Only then can they send the southern orbital route to Victoria as well as the already up and running CJ.

And only once that has happened could they conceivably consider an extension to the Victoria Line. Any attempt before then would just add to the overcrowding issue, but post 2017 is a distinct possibility.
 
#264 ·
I beg to differ re: extending the tubes. What you say is true to some extent, but only when they are the sole access between two points.

The ideal arrangement is found on the Met line, where the trains stop for a few stations then run fast. The next best thing to this is to have interchanges between the slow tubes and faster services, as the Jubilee line has at Wembley Park and Finchley Road (West Hampstead would be better, but I digress).

So re: the Waterloo & City, Chessington passengers would only be travelling on the tube stock to Raynes Park, then they'd be on fast services to Waterloo, which could be increased as they wouldn't be stopping at the intermediate stations to Clapham Junction, nor those that could then be added up to Waterloo. If they wanted Bank, they could change back to the W&C at Waterloo - it'd still be quicker than staying on the tube, but for those wanting intermediate stations, the service will be much better.

Everyone wins.

The tubes are essentially high-capacity express buses that run underground. They're not designed to be comfortable for long-distance travel, hence the longitudinal seating for capacity. The comfortable journey length is probably about 5-30 minutes, and whilst a bus might get you x miles, a tube will get you 2.5-3x miles in the same time, so as long as your interchange to fast rail or your destination is within that, tubes are fine out as far as you like. Clearly, a single line poking it's head out into South London is going to be swamped, but as long as it interchanges with the big rail every 6 stations or so, there will be no problem, and then big rail doesn't have to worry about serving a branch or bunch of stations any more.
 
#266 · (Edited)
I beg to differ re: extending the tubes. What you say is true to some extent, but only when they are the sole access between two points.

The ideal arrangement is found on the Met line, where the trains stop for a few stations then run fast. The next best thing to this is to have interchanges between the slow tubes and faster services, as the Jubilee line has at Wembley Park and Finchley Road (West Hampstead would be better, but I digress).

So re: the Waterloo & City, Chessington passengers would only be travelling on the tube stock to Raynes Park, then they'd be on fast services to Waterloo, which could be increased as they wouldn't be stopping at the intermediate stations to Clapham Junction, nor those that could then be added up to Waterloo. If they wanted Bank, they could change back to the W&C at Waterloo - it'd still be quicker than staying on the tube, but for those wanting intermediate stations, the service will be much better.
You're missing the point: nobody wants to go to Waterloo. It's nowhere near the City. So what you're suggesting is a downgraded user experience where what was once just one train + change at Waterloo becomes two or more changes.

(And, to be honest, the South West Main Line actually has some decent infrastructure and isn't really struggling all that much. Its only real pinch-point is Waterloo itself. This line is platinum compared to the ex-SE&CR network, which barely rates a "slightly polished turd".)

The tubes are essentially high-capacity express buses that run underground. They're not designed to be comfortable for long-distance travel, hence the longitudinal seating for capacity.
Explain the "A" Stock, then. And why do most buses in London have so much transverse seating instead of the longitudinal variety seen on the new Overground stock?

Yes, trains solve similar problems to buses, but so do planes. It's the scale of the journey which define which solution fits best. Buses are primarily for short journeys of only a few miles. Trams and light rail cater for slightly longer journeys—providing an "express bus" option. Metros are designed for even longer journeys. Inter-city / HSR caters for journeys that are longer still... and so on up the scale.

Or so the theory goes. In reality, if you live near the terminus of a particular mode of transport, it's not uncommon to see people getting on there, making themselves comfortable and just staying on the vehicle all the way in to their place of work. Sure, it might take longer, but convenience also counts for something.

Unfortunately, the UK's rail networks were built in an era when nobody really understood how people would use the new technology, so it's no great surprise that exceptions and oddities abound.

Four-tracking the Catford Loop or the Chatham main line via Kent House isn't a trivial engineering project. And there's no reason to do so anyway: building new tunnels with very few intermediate stations is arguably a much better option for south London's rail networks than any amount of buggering about on the surface. Fast services from Victoria to Kent could run fast, underground, all the way to the M25, where four-tracking a line running through open countryside is cheaper. One or two intermediate stations, at strategic interchanges can be built along these new tunnels, but it's difficult to justify having more than one per tunnel. Lewisham might be justifiable; Bromley another. The tunnel would end before, or just after, the termini of suburban metro line(s), where there'd be another interchange. From that point on, the fast lines return to the original alignment—though some of that could do with having a bunch of kinks ironed out.

This releases a lot of capacity for metro services, but still leaves the question of where the fast tunnels end. Do they dead-end at stations like Victoria and Charing Cross? Or do they continue through London to add more RER-style cross-London connections? Should such connections link to express services, or metros? The devil is in the details.


The comfortable journey length is probably about 5-30 minutes, and whilst a bus might get you x miles, a tube will get you 2.5-3x miles in the same time, so as long as your interchange to fast rail or your destination is within that, tubes are fine out as far as you like. Clearly, a single line poking it's head out into South London is going to be swamped, but as long as it interchanges with the big rail every 6 stations or so, there will be no problem, and then big rail doesn't have to worry about serving a branch or bunch of stations any more.
It's not that simple: Commuters travel into London from as far afield as Canterbury and Brighton, not just Orpington or Sevenoaks. And there are a lot of stops before these trains have even reached the M25. By the time these trains rock up at Chislehurst or East Croydon, they're already packed full to bursting!

Remember, these "fast"—and I use the term very loosely—services also have to compete for space on the London approaches with the stopping services. The ex-SE&CR network's timetable is one gargantuan compromise. If it were ideal, there'd be no demand at all for the HS1 Domestic trains. As it is, the stopping service from Orpington to London via Kent House can barely manage 3 tph. each way. Any more and the fast services won't have enough paths into London.

Commuters on these routes don't expect their trains to be quick. And why would they care if a train takes 15 minutes longer to get them to work if the alternative is to get out onto a windswept platform at Lewisham, run down the stairs and through the subway to the other, reaching the other up platform just as their connection pulls in. (Or, worst still, just as it pulls out.) Commuters like to read newspapers, muck about with their Blackberry phones and so forth. If the rain is sheeting down, why in blazes would they get out of the train before it gets into London, where the terminus stations usually have large platform canopies and overall roofs?

You need to think in terms of user interfaces. People like convenience. The more faff and hassle your product involves, the less popular it will be. Take a good hard look at the Apple iPhone's success. When it first appeared, it didn't even support 3G or MMS, yet it still sold like hot cakes. Why? Because it made the basics easy to use—something Apple's competitors had singularly failed at for years. The same rules of interface design implemented by Apple apply to all interfaces—digital or analog, electronic or mechanical, what interface is made of doesn't change this.

There's a very good reason why many still choose to drive into London, and it has nothing at all to do with speed. Rail needs to provide not only a quicker journey, but a competitive level of comfort and convenience. Trains don't do the "door-to-door" thing, but they can let you work on your laptop in safety during your journey, removing the stress of driving. But if the typical passenger's experience is being crammed into a glorified, overheated sardine tin on rails, it had better be a bloody fast journey!
 
#265 · (Edited)
^^ Along those lines just above, I've not really felt that over the moon with the Hayes takeover idea. If you're going to the west end all the way from West Wickham or Hayes to Leicester Sq, that would be over 30 minutes. And I believe the passenger numbers to be an issue, especially with all of the flow from rail passengers at Lewisham, maybe not now but in a decade it could be. And if this becomes the "big capital project" it may preclude the ability to do more practical and beneficial projects.

I would favour an extension to Lewisham, or maybe even just New Cross and leave the option open for further extension. That way once crossrail has opened and shed light on the suppressed demand in an area, if perhaps it meant the Bakerloo would be best heading along the sought bank of the thames for example, we could.

Meanwhile, get on and sort out the heavy rail network, which is the real problem. I really like the idea of tunnelling a new line for the Bromley line. That would bring excellent changes. Journey times are slow for this line during rush hour for long distance service to Maidstone/Ashford, Medway and beyond, because of the traffic, and the heavy use of the slow Catford Loop just to get more long distance paths to Victoria. Anything that speeds this up and increases capacity will unleash suppressed demand in all the areas it serves. Whilst at the same time enabling the suburban services to operate a properly tube-esque service like it should.

Orpington could propabably operate 18tph out of the slow lines. I'd say a good service would be 6tph to Hither Green way, 4tph via the Catford Loop (which also gets 2tph from Sevenoaks via Swanley), and 6tph via Kent House, leaving a few spare to account for optimism.

The fasts could easily divert north at Shortlands and go into a tunnel at Ravensbourne and then go in a long tunnel straight to Battersea Power station, this way its mainly under parks, making access for construction easier, as well as lowering nimbyism.

It could be built for 100mph, reducing journey times for all long distance services by about 10-12 minutes imo, if avoiding the peak flow congestion is taken into account as well.

edit - just checked out the route. The tunnel would be 8 miles along this route, curving from under Ravensbourne station, arriving at Battersea Pier junction and into Victoria over the existing slow lines. The existing lines use the other pair into Victoria. The tunnel could later be extended from the Ravensbourne end on the course it it is headed and going under Bromley as well (way in the future though). This would allow a robust 12tpph for the fast trains - 4 for Maidstone and 8 for Medway.
 
#273 ·
I think that the London Overground line is concentrated on North London more than the South of the river, there should be at least another extension to other places in south London, as for metro tunnels I would build a bridge or a tunnel from Blackheath all the way to London Bridge so that fast trains from the Woolwich branch of the Dartford Mainline could by pass Lewisham easily so that it doesn't interfear with Bexleyheath line trains,

Having reviews my earlier post on the Bakerloo extension I think it is impratical
Just keep it as a simple line to Hayes and a spur to Beckenham and a smaller second branch to Bromley North

I'd still extend the Victoria line southeastward to Penge, Crystal Palace and Croydon
But both branches would remain underground except around the Croydon/Selhurst area since I think the junction around there could cope
Especially with Brighton trains being handed over to Thameslink in the future as opposed to serving Victoria & Clapham this would free up both the Norbury and Crystal Palace lines
 
#274 · (Edited)
Official TFL Option 1:



2 SSC suggestions that use nearby Nunhead instead:






Peckham Rye Common as a new station? Situated where exactly?

I know that sounds like a dumb question, but you can walk to the common in five minutes flat from Peckham Rye NR station - it's actually the adjacent Peckham Rye Park that borders Nunhead that is an area much further away from a station of any kind.
 
#276 ·
Do people think that the ELL to Victoria would go ahead? Supposing it was 4tph, as with Clapham.

I'm not sure who would take it, beyond the people who used the SLL previously. From Victoria, it would still be quicker to access the core route via Westminster and the Jubilee. And four car trains would be a real waste of paths/platforms in the peaks there.

I think they're better off trying to offer more tph to Clapham Junction. Any shifting in inner South London to the ELL for the City and Docklands will help reduce capacity on the Northern line and to a lesser extent, the Victoria line through a quieter Stockwell.

Saving up for a Brixton station would help this hugely! Such a shame we don't have billionaire philanthropists who might pay for it!
 
#278 · (Edited)
^^ Why can't a train get from the Denmark Hill route to Victoria? They can either switch on to the SE lines between Clapham High St and Wandsworth Road (at no speed cost, as switching over or staying put has the same speed limit of 45mph), or continue along the atlantic lines into platforms 1&2 at Battersea Park, and come in on the Brighton mainline half of Victoria.

Anyway I think I'm confusing things a little. Basically some LB services are being removed and diverted to ELL, not sure which now. But anyway, reduces strain on LB.
 
#284 ·
I think what is being said is that Waterloo's not being in the City means the W&C was built. An enlarged Victoria would cause similar problems (a 'deep-level district' would have be needed to deal with the traffic, perhaps).

Don't forget that the other routes in the Southern region had both City and West End termini - Cannon Street/Charing Cross, London Bridge/Victoria, Blackfriars/Victoria. The City was also a more popular destination, and the West End less popular, when the W&C was built.
 
Top